I am addressing this to you as you are all members of the charity which is financing the legal action and supporting Neil Wells.

And to Wyn and Graeme as you are both individually and in your own capacity litigants represented by David Neutze independent of any involvement of any trust .

I am concerned that when I send an email to your lawyers and l CC you in , your lawyers do not respond back to you and only to Wells.

This to me is odd for a lawyer who is instructed by you and is corresponding on matters which pertain to you , this makes it obvious that you are distancing yourselves from the litigation .

This really makes me wonder if you understand what the trust is and what the trust is not. Basically that is what this litigation is all about.

I am concerned that each of you have been told not to speak to me. The story you have been fed has duped you to the extent that you have never questioned what is going on, had you questioned it it would have been painfully obvious that I have been made out to be the villain when in reality it is Mr Wells who is using you to re write history to turn his illegal actions into something more palatable.

The heart of the issue is the existence of AWINZ the law enforcement authority . Neil wells made an application in November 1999 , when no trust existed.

He gave false documents to the minister and caused him to act upon them as though they were true.

Neil Wells derived a benefit from this action .. this makes it fraud.

So by shifting the time frames and bringing other people into it he has sanitised the transaction to make it a legitimate action.

We have chronologies every where e.g if I was gay I could not get married this month it would not be legal and to claim legitimacy of a marriage this moth and getting a pecuniary benefit from it wold be fraud.

However when the law comes into force gay marriage is legitimate and the actions are sanctioned by law. The same time frames apply to parking driving from a certain age etc..

AWINZ the law enforcement authority did not exist.. Wells needed to cover up You have knowingly or through total neglect assisted in this .

Proof of Wells perjury to the court is below .. this is from the transcript in court .. He has lied to the court by shifting the time of the application from November 1999 to some other time when the application was supposedly made in a legitimate manner.

The only issue is that MAF do not have any record or knowledge of any other application and the minister in his letter to Wells 21 December makes it very clear that the application is based on the November 1999 application , this was three months before any trust deed was dated . the application was supported by a unsigned trust deed .

For more see the affidavit it has the evidence attached

The transcript reads these are three separate statements which totally influence the court .

The Bills were not passed until October 1999 and the Act itself did not come into force until the 1 of January 2000, so MAF could not receive an application as an approved organisation until such time as the Act itself had commenced. So there was a lot of paper work and preparation done in 1999 but none of it could have any affect until we could lodge a formal application. Any correspondence with MAF in 1999 was simply on the basis of intention; there could not be a formal application at that time.”

When the Act was passed and we submitted a formal application, that was at the point that it was required by the trustees that we sign that Trust Deed in a I believe March of 2000.”

“but it was not necessary in our view to actually have the signed copy until we were ready to proceed in the year 2000 because we couldn’t formalise our application until then”

What is particularly serious for WYN and Graeme is that your lawyers are not representing you they are only representing Wells and by protecting his perjury they are exposing you to criminal charges. Have they spoken to you with regards to the email below and the affidavit attached to this email? May I suggest that your lawyers have a conflict of interest when it comes to representing you …unless of course you consent to their action of concealing Mr Wells perjury, in which case you become a party to this. ( see section 66 crimes act Parties are guilty of the offence )

I do not wish to file criminal charges against each and every one of you for being party to the various offences and for aiding and abetting the various actions of Neil Wells which I view as criminal offending but if you continue to support Wells and his actions then you leave me no choice

It is time that we bring this to an end 7 years , a marriage and $300,000 give me a lot to fight for and none of this would have happened had it not been for the support you gave both financially and through your silence.

I welcome the opportunity for any of you to speak to me so that we can resolve this matter, I can assure you that whoever assist will not be the subject of any litigation from me either civilly ,criminally or in your professional capacity.

I will also in return remove anything which I have posted and which pertains to you .

I invite you to speak to your own independent counsel and have them present but the deal is that you have to be truthful and help me bring a swift end to this mess.

Ellis J was extremely interested in my matter and reported that she found me credible , we have reached the turning point.

This is the last offer that I am extending to each and every one of you . You either stick with Wells or you look after your own neck .

I will deliver a copy of this to each and every one of you minus the attachments which you will have to get from this email .

I will also be publishing this on the Transparency web site so that there is permanent and public record of this offer.

This offer will expire 4pm Friday 26th July 2013 or as soon as liquidation proceedings are commenced by your lawyers .

Please find here with the documents which I have filed for tomorrow affidavit

I draw your attention to the frauds in very simplistic terms as set out in the affidavit

1.Your clients had no standing.. You supplied a trust deed dated1.3.2000 for Coutts, wells ,Giltrap and Groves and used this to show that Wells Coutts and Hoadley had standing when in reality Hoadley had never been appointed as trustee .

2.There is also the fact that there was one lost trust deed now there are two originals

3.This affects the strike out Your clients had no standing and could not have brought the claims of passing off and breach of fair trade. This in turn would have ensured that I won the interlocutories not them and my defence would not have been struck out

4. Neil Wells had to re write history the application could not possibly have been made by the trust which formed on 1.3.2000 so Neil Wells said to the court

The Bills were not passed until October 1999 and the Act itself did not come into force until the 1 of January 2000, so MAF could not receive an application as an approved organisation until such time as the Act itself had commenced. So there was a lot of paper work and preparation done in 1999 but none of it could have any affect until we could lodge a formal application. Any correspondence with MAF in 1999 was simply on the basis of intention; there could not be a formal application at that time.”

When the Act was passed and we submitted a formal application, that was at the point that it was required by the trustees that we sign that Trust Deed in a I believe March of 2000.”

“but it was not necessary in our view to actually have the signed copy until we were ready to proceed in the year 2000 because we couldn’t formalise our application until then”

Do you not think that this is perjury in light of the fact that MAF and the minister in official documents specifically mention that they rely on the application 22 November 1999! Have a look the evidence is there

Despite what must be an obvious miscarriage of justice to everyone except Brookfields you continue to wish to put me out of business and take the last of my funds while denying me a right to seek justice .

You are totally in breach of the rules and your continued action in this litigation despite rule 13.5.3 this suggests to me that you are not willing to uphold the rule of law.

Please also explain how Hoadley wells and Coutts became the law enforcement authority .. there certainly does not appear to be any legal basis for their claims .. how did it happen ????

If you had integrity and were honest lawyers you would be acting as officers of the court and be setting this injustice straight

Please note : I am not re litigating – just because my defence was struck out does not mean that your client can deceive the court perjury is perjury even if a defence is struck out

I am not being vexatious I have a right to have been judged on facts not fiction

Transparency New Zealand is a voluntary organisation . We are not funded in any way other than by Donations
If you support our work and wish to see us continue please support us with your donation. Thank you
account number 01-0258-0045994-00